Disciplinary Proceedings Need Only 'Preponderance of Probability', Not 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Madras HC

Background

Two workers at Greaves Cotton Limited's Light Engine Unit II were dismissed following allegations of sabotage. S. Harikumar was accused of deliberately dropping a B8 spring washer in an engine, which led to a customer returning the product. B. Bharathi was charged with intentionally dropping a B6 spring washer between cylinder heads and a piston, detected during testing. Both workers were initially suspended and later subjected to departmental inquiry under Clauses 16(4) and 16(15) of the Company's Standing Orders. After finding the charges proved, the management terminated their services on October 5, 2009.

The workers challenged their dismissal before the Labour Court, Vellore. The court first issued a preliminary order confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry, then rejected their claims in final awards dated August 7, 2012. A single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed their subsequent writ petitions, leading to the present intra-court appeals.

Arguments

The appellants' senior counsel argued that the inquiry officer's order suffered from perversity, a crucial aspect overlooked by both the Labour Court and single judge. He contended that most findings were based on no evidence, and the inquiry officer's conclusions were drawn from mere surmises. The management's counsel countered that the inquiry was conducted fairly, as acknowledged in the Labour Court's preliminary order. He emphasized that the inquiry findings were based on the appellants' own statements, not presumptions. The counsel maintained that both the Labour Court's awards and single judge's orders were supported by evidence.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court emphasized that while criminal convictions mandate proof “beyond reasonable doubt,” disciplinary proceedings operate on the more flexible “preponderance of probability” standard. This distinction, the court noted, has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, making it a well-settled principle in employment law.

Secondly, the court addressed the appellants' argument about the inquiry officer's use of the word “presumed” regarding piston damage. While acknowledging this as potentially problematic terminology, the court characterized it as a mere stray observation that didn't undermine the overall validity of the inquiry. The court emphasized that the broader evidence, particularly from cross-examination, established a clear chain of circumstances pointing to the appellants' involvement in dropping the spring washers.

Thirdly, the court examined the proportionality of the punishment. Given the serious nature of sabotage in an engine manufacturing unit, where such actions could potentially endanger end users and damage the company's reputation, the court found the punishment of dismissal proportionate to the misconduct. The bench emphasized that in cases involving industrial sabotage, the wider implications for public safety and business integrity must be considered.

Finally, the court reviewed the single judge's methodology in analyzing the evidence. It found that the single judge had meticulously examined each piece of evidence, properly applied the “preponderance of probability” standard, and correctly concluded that no one else could have placed the spring washers in the engines. Finding no procedural irregularities, the Division Bench dismissed both appeals.

Case Title: S.Harikumar v The Presiding Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Sudalai Kannu

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Raghunathan for M/s. T.S. Gopalan

Click Here To Read/Download The Order